New to board and questions

[paintsrule]

Hello,
I'm new to this board and to photography. I love taking pictures when they turn out, lol and bought a Canon Rebel G a few yrs ago, and love taking pictures with it. Bought a used lens Quantaray 75-300 mm, and I started using it taking action pictures of my horses, and at local rodeos, had no problems there, but when I went into a building I ran into problems with the lighting. On the lens that the camera came with I bought UV and polarizing filters, and the Quantaray lens has just the polarizing filter on it. I'm going to buy a UV filter for it soon. Someone mentioned on another board about a flourescent filter, but there's two different kinds a green and a white so I'd have not a clue to which one to use. But I did buy a Sigma 500 flash for canon cameras, as I'm the one that is going to be taking pictures at the family reunion in June, and I'm not going to use the big lens, so it should have enough lighting.

I was wondering if anyone knew of any good websites, besides this one, or any good photography books for beginners, that would be helpful in learning photography.

I'm going to post some pictures....the good and the bad ones and would love it if someone would critique them. Just remeber that I'm a newbie to photography and don't totally tear them to pieces.

Cowboy....

Cowboy again...

Picture of rodeos, outdoors, quantaray lens, canon rebel g camera...







Picture taken indoors used the Quantaray lens. It's a yellowish color and blurry. Is there a way that I can fix that problem?

[kkraczek]

Hi Paintsrule,

I'm new here myself and have already been given tons of great advice. I started a thread similar to yours not too long ago, and got some helpful suggestions for books and such. Look here:
How did you learn about photography?
BTW, I love your first two photos- how sweet! I think the quality is great as well. The others are also good- keep practicing, and ask the pros here for helpful tips. Glad you're here... post more horse photos anytime!

[another view]

This looks like a subject you'll do well with - but it does take practice. Your first shot is pretty nice. The others show that you know what you're watching - but fast action can be difficult to shoot. For books, you might want to start with the Kodak series on the boring stuff like how exposure works, composition, etc. It's important to get the fundamentals down.

The color cast on the indoor shot is most likely because of the lighting in that building. If you're shooting negative film, the place you got it developed should be able to correct the color a little. Some of the inexpensive places may not want to do that - that's one thing you pay for at a custom lab. Another option would be a fluorescent filter. These filters are magenta to even out the greenish color cast. Get an FL-D (fluorescent for daylight film) if you want to try it. Speaking of filters, usually you only want to use one at a time. I personally don't use UV protective filters unless it's raining or blowing dust, etc - but if you're using a polarizer don't use the UV. I use lens hoods for lens protection, but also to cut down on flare which lowers contrast.

The problem with UV filters is that they can add flare - which is what hoods can reduce. You can use both, but like I say, I don't use UV filters.

Oh, yeah - welcome to pr.com!

[Grandpaw]

Just another opinion for what it's worth. I have two Nikon F cameras and always keep a UV filter and rubber lens hood on all my lenses for the last 34 years. For me I haven't had any problems with flair in my pictures. I have had an occasion at a wedding reception where someone shook up a coke and sprayed everywhere and by having the UV filter on the lens protected the lens coating. Filters are much easier to replace than lenses are. Also I was at Disney World many years ago and dropped my camera while reloading film and was saved by the rubber lens hood when it hit the cement, so both the filter and the lens hood have saved equipment for me. I have only had good experiences by having these items on all my lenses. You are doing the right thing by asking questions and getting many ideas to form your own opinion. I know there are much more knowledgeable people on this forum than myself but I just thought I would put my two cents worth in.

[Sebastian]

First, you need to understand what a polarizer does. COntrary to popular belief, it does not imrpove the image quality of every shot. If you want to adjust the reflection of water or glass, you can use it for that purpose, if you are at the right angles. It can intensify the blue in the sky, ocne again if you are at the right angles. Other than that, it does very little, and takes away two stops of light, which in the majority of shots does nothing but hurt you. Plus, cheap polarizers don't polarize effectively and can introduce unwanted color casts.

As for UV, a filter for protection is a waste of money. Today's lens coatings are incredibly tough. Unless you're exposing the element to several hours in a sandstorm, there is not much to worry about. And the real danger to your lens has nothing to do with the forn element, it's more likely to be dropped or stolen, both of which a UV will do nothing against. Sure, if you drop it the UV might keep the front element from ebing scratched, but what good is that when the lens won't zoom or focus anymore??

Grandpaw.

I think your statement is a bit too general to be of any value. Are you saying that in your 34 years of shooting you never experienced flare? As for the champagne, nothing a cloth wouldn't have wiped off, I think saying that the filter "protected" the lens is a bit much...

Ultimately, if lens designers think that an element needs to be protected, they include a protection filter with the lens, and account for it in the optical formula. The long glass from both Canon and Nikon, the ones with the HUGE front elements (the ones actually WORTH protecting) come with a sheet of glass in front of the lens, so in cae it gets damaged it's cheap to replace. For something like a consumer zoom it's just not worth it.

As for flare and ghosting, you may or may not ever notice it. At best, some slight ghosting and reflection will soften the image, at worst you will see double images of lights to varying degrees.

Do UV filters have their place? Yes, for example the Canon L-series zoom lenses are weather-proof with the exception of the front element. To seal it you need a filter. On a beach, where sand is being blown, use a filter. But keeping it on constantly is just not letting your glass achieve everything it can. Of course the better the lens, the more aparent the difference between a filter and no filter, but the difference can not be dismissed.

Funny thing is, I used to be just the same.way. I had a 180 dollar Tamron that I made sure to put a filter on. As my lenses got more expensive, I started using fewer and fewer lenses. Now I don't even bother anymore, unless the condition require them.

And, if you do need a filter, get the Hoya or Heliopan multi-coated ones at least. B+W are considered to be the best, but much more expensive than the other two. Don't bother with any other company, the glass and coatings are so poor you are just throing your money away.

EDIT: Don't get me wrong, if you need one,use it, but make sure you do it for the right reasons. Protecting the lens is simply not one of those reasons. Realistically, the damage that is most likely to occur to a lens is simply not going to be stopped by a filter.

[Sebastian]

Forgot to mention, the polarizer is costing you light, so by taking it off you will get more light to the film, allowing for faster shutter speeds, letting you stop action better. In other words, the blur will be reduced.

[Grandpaw]

I respect the fact that you disagree but I will stick by my opinion that the filter helps protect the lens. What I said was, that a coke sprayed everywhere and got on the filter. Coke will eat thought just about anything if left there long enough. I know it can be wiped off but in some cases it might have happened to a camera and not noticed for several minutes if it wasn't being used.

As you said it was a general statement and was meant to be taken that way. As far as I am concerned everyone can make there own decision on what to do. As for me I will continue to leave the filter on my lenses. As far as I know any coating can be messed up under the right circumstances and I still believe in the old saying "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"

I have no desire to get in an argument with you or anyone about this. All I want to say is that I am still of the same opinion that I have always had. As I said the first time, let everyone gather different opinions and make up their own mind.

[Sebastian]

As I said the first time, let everyone gather different opinions and make up their own mind.

Exactly, that is why I posted my thoughts on the matter. I also have no desire to get into an argument, and I tried my hardest to come across diplomatically and just show examples of my thought on this subject. Point counterpoint sort of thing...

For some reason I thought you said champagne, I apologize. I have no idea where that came from. I would be more worried about the buttons and rings though, the glass would be the easiest to clean out of all of those.

[Grandpaw]

It just hit me the wrong way when I read that my statement was too general to be of any value. All is well as long as we can agree to have different opinions. Have a nice day!

[Sebastian]

It just hit me the wrong way when I read that my statement was too general to be of any value. All is well as long as we can agree to have different opinions. Have a nice day!

What I meant was that there may be many, many factors to why you never had problems with flare. Without going into all those factors it might make it seem like filters are not an issue, when in certain circumstances they are. I know I'm probably still not saying it right though...

Anyway, I can understand why you responded the way you did, I am too blunt for my own good most of the time.

Have a good one.